Recent Supreme Court Decisions Show:

Until we get more Democrats/Liberals on the Supremes we will be forced to put up with moronic decisions like the recent one to repeal gun bans. Conservatives have always used the court as a means to advance their right-suppressing agenda. Scalia, Bush's lapdog, can rant all he wants, but the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not authorize a shoot-em-up-and-carry-whatever-gun-you-want society; Justice Stevens's interpretation of the provisions of the
Amendment is the correct one. Scalia would be the first one to use the Constitution for toilet paper; intellectually he already has. Let's hope Obama gets a chance to appoint enough humanitarian Liberals that the balance of power is no longer tilted in the direction of Totalitarianism.

Stuart, you should be ashamed of your comments re Bush v. Gore. You have become exactly what you criticize in your essay. For shame.

Your other comments, in the guise of even-handedness, betray considerable bias.

Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court is a disinterested, deliberative body of legal scholars who carefully weigh precedent before deciding an issue hasn't read a decision lately. Scalia, sitting in his Lone Ranger outfit: "Tonto, do you think that those dead white guys really meant that we have a right to privacy, or was the 4th Amendment just a placeholder until the snooping technology got better?" Tonto: "Hard to say, Kemo Sabe. My people were not exactly welcome around Carpenters' Hall back then. Perhaps you should consult Ouija." Scalia: "It just keeps saying, "Ya think?"

Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court is a disinterested, deliberative body that carefully weighs legal precedent to guide their decisions hasn't read a decision during the last three years. Scalia, siting in his Lone Ranger outfit: "Tonto, do you think that those dead white guys really meant that we have a right to privacy or were they just putting in a placeholder until the snooping technology got better?" Tonto: "Hard to say, Kemo Sabe, my people were not exactly welcome at Carpenters' Hall. What does your Ouija board say?" Scalia: "It just says, 'Ya think?"

I am a Catholic and I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State. I am very concerned about McCain's stated intention of appointing more religious right judges to the Supreme Court with the goal of overturning Roe v, Wade. McCain discusses this goal on his website, and has mentioned it in speeches on numerous occasions.

Even though I personally don't think abortion is acceptable, I do think that reproductive rights are civil rights. Ask the women in China whose second children have been taken away how much they would like to control their reproductive rights. Or the Mormon teenagers who were forced into "marriages" below the age of consent. Without reproductive rights, life can become very dismal indeed.

Right now, five of the nine Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. We have a CATHOLIC MAJORITY in the Supreme Court. Four of these Justices (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) have consistently voted a conservative anti-abortion ticket. The fifth Catholic Justice (Kennedy) is a moderate, who sometimes votes in favor of abortion rights, sometimes against. Justice Stevens, a liberal on abortion, is 88 years old. Justice Ginsburg, another liberal on abortion, is 75. Kennedy, the centrist Catholic, is 72. Chances are good, given their ages, that at least one of them will die or retire during the term of the next President. And if our next President is McCain, presto-chango, we suddenly have a Supreme Court that is controlled by conservative Catholics.

Even though I am a Catholic who is against abortion, I can see the dangers of the highest court in the land interpreting the law through narrow eyes. This can't be good for America. Why not let the Protestants, the Jews or the Baptists control the Supreme Court? That sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? Or how about the Buddhists (they might actually be more impartial). Perhaps we should hand over the Supreme Court to a Muslim majority? That would make us all scream, wouldn't it? Having a conservative Catholic majority is just as bad, if you stop to think about it.

Did you know that if McCain is elected you will have to pay income tax on the value of the medical insurance that your employer gives you? Worse still, he is offering a tax break for people who pay their own insurance, BUT only $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.

Let's say you have a family of four. Your insurance policy costs would be at least $1,500-2,500 per month under a self-pay plan, which cost more than employer group plans. So, you pay $18,000 -$30,000 per year for insurance, and you get to deduct only $5,000 of that. If you paid $25,000 for you insurance, you would be out of pocket $20,000 per year. This is FAR WORSE than the current system, where if you are self employed you can deduct 100% of you medical insurance costs.

So, if you're not self employed, you would stick with your Employer's plan. Employer plans for a family of four have a value of $900-$1,500 per month totaling 10,800-$18,000 per year. Surprise! On April 15th, you owe tax on all of that as INCOME to you. Say your bracket is 25%, and the value of your Employer medical plan is $14,000. You will OWE THE IRS an additional $3,500, and that's ON TOP of whatever monthly premium you already pay to your employer for your insurance.

Many analysts say that McCain's new rules would encourage employers to stop offering health benefits. If that happened, then far fewer Americans would be insured than are insured today, because what family of four can afford $18,000-$30,000 out of pocket per year for self-pay health insurance?

Furthermore, McCain's plan does not require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions of people who self-pay their insurance. People under employer group plans have all of their pre-existing conditions covered. This is a hugely unfair aspect of the current system. Insurance companies can afford to cover the pre-existing conditions of the much larger pool of people with group insurance, but they refuse to pay the pre-existing conditions on the smaller pool of self-pay customers. They have been allowed to price gouge the self-pay customers, which is a form of market manipulation that should be illegal.

So let's say one of your kids had diabetes and you have high blood pressure, then your employer stops offering insurance. You now have to buy your own, but you and your child are INELIGIBLE due to pre-existing conditions. Oh, yeah, they will let you buy the insurance, but you can't use it for any pre-existing condition until you have paid on time every month for two years. And you know what happens at one year and 11 months? You get a letter saying your policy has been cancelled. I have many patients this has happened to.

McCain's plan SUCKS.

It does nothing to help middle class working Americans afford or obtain medical insurance. In fact, it makes the current system WORSE.

The court system is getting way to political now days without a doubt... But on this topic with the whole second amendment topic, it is way outdated we dont even have a militia any more we ave the national gaurd and sure they should be allowed to carry guns in public but it should be against the law fro every one else to have a gun outside your home(unless hunting with proper documantaion) regardless if you have a liscens to own, TEXAS cough cough...

I have the feeling here that I am alone with my thoughts in a pitch blackness. Hold for a moment while I pinch myself to make sure that this is not a dream. Is anyone out there?

It is most appreciated in times of our elections when we seek the perfect leader, who never quite comes forward. We are, after all, imperfect mortals. But still, we are able to find someone to sweep out the detritus of past governmental errors and lead us on a new and hopeful path into a better future.

You cannot fail to be inspired by the genius of those who carefully formed this system of government under which we live. Beneath the flaws and warts on its surface is an underlying excellence of ultimate historical grace and style, for which we are eternally grateful.

All you have to do is read Plessy versus Ferguson, decided in 1898, and Brown versus Board of Education, decided in 1954, to get there. It was justice in each case. There are few, if any, better examples to show how the court helps the nation to keep its flexibility as it grows into the future with the aid of monumental decisions by a supreme court. The two decisions are exactly equal and opposite in their result.
Those who advocate strict construction of the constitution without regard to the necessity to alter our basic law to allow orderly growth into the future, and those who would like to make it a third legislative branch of government are both in an error that could eventually be fatal to our constitution. Fortunately, as our politick moves in its pendulum swing from right to left, the court slowly moves back and forth by political appointment and somehow blends the subtleties of the politick into the fabric of our law, neither too fast as legislation and neither static and unchanging, frozen in a past unworthy of the needs of the day.

The "wink wink" court. Yes, wink wink, we are impartial to the facts and faithful to the constitution and its original intent and only wish to decide cases according to unemotional law in its pragmatic grandeur, wink wink. Our justice is blind to the politics of the president who appointed us, wink wink, and he never intended for us to further his political agenda after he was even gone to the grave, wink wink, nor to further the politics of his party at all costs, wink wink. We never pull to the left or the right in our efforts to keep the law on its even course. Winkety winkety winkety.
It is government itself that is the medium in which the bacteria of hypocrisy grows, regardless of which branch that it might be. The founders' efforts were to create an ideal branch in the Supreme Court that would meet the ideals of impartiality and offset the rabid politics of the Executive and Legislative branches, but only in brief moments of the court's history has this manifested itself. Please don't ask me when. Just go read the cases.
At the bottom of it all is the aphrodisiac of power, and it is only the rare public servant who is not corrupted by it. But still, it beats anything else that we could do for some kind of order in a society.